Same Old Democrats

The Republican Party’s power is approaching hegemonic proportions. In the wake of the November election, Republicans now control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and soon will have a majority on the Supreme Court. They dominate thirty-two state legislatures and thirty-three governors are Republican. If the GOP can pick up two more state houses, it will be in a position to call for a constitutional convention. At such a gathering, expect significant increases in the government’s power over individuals and greater limits on its ability to regulate corporations.

Democrats have been losing elections because the two most recent Democratic Presidents along with many senators and representatives have embraced neo-liberal economic policies. These include deregulation, bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade pacts, and bailouts for reckless integrated financial institutions rather than struggling people. The result has been stagnant wages for perhaps 50% of all Americans and a rising sense of economic insecurity and unease about the future.

On Friday February 24 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted against reinstituting a ban on corporate donations. The following day, it elected former Labor Secretary Tom Perez Chair over Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison and several other less well-known candidates. Ellison’s record, unlike Perez’s, demonstrates a strong commitment to economic populism and the working class. Because of these contrasting records, the race was widely seen as a proxy for the ongoing battle within the Democratic Party between its corporate wing and progressives.

Ellison spoke out against the corporation-friendly Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Perez supported it. Ellison urged the DNC to re-enact a ban on corporate donations. Perez opposed such a ban and the DNC ultimately rejected . Ellison was one of the only Democrats in Congress to endorse Bernie Sanders. Perez was a Hillary Clinton surrogate.

Despite the disastrous course the Democrats have steered since their high water mark in 2009, the party evidently lacks the ability or will to change direction. Although voters have decisively rejected neo-liberalism, corporatists retain control of the party.

Today’s progressives face a political situation much like the one abolitionists confronted in the early 1850s when the slavery question began to eclipse all others in American politics. Then, as now, two major parties predominated. One, then the Democrats now the GOP, was unabashedly regressive. One, then the Whigs now the Democrats, was feckless and captive to big business.

At the Whig Party’s 1852 Presidential convention, anti-slavery retired Army General Winfield Scott won on the fifty-third ballot. But, to the dismay of abolitionists, the party platform included acceptance of the Fugitive Slave Law due to lobbying by slave-owning Whigs. This cleavage among the Whigs probably helped Democrat Franklin Pierce, an anti-abolitionist from New Hampshire, thump Scott and send his party on a short road to oblivion.

Within two years, anti-slavery Whigs founded the Republican Party to run candidates in the 1854 mid-term elections. After two more years, the Republican Party had supplanted the Whigs as the second major party although Democrats did prevail in the 1856 Presidential election. But Republican John Fremont’s loss to James Buchanan was by a much narrower margin than Scott’s loss to Pierce four years earlier. This set the stage for Republican Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860.

Given the DNC’s refusal to reinstate a ban on corporate money and its choice of Perez as Chair, today’s DNC seems bent on repeating the mistakes of ill-fated Whigs. Rather than embrace the energy of the progressive economic populists who backed Bernie Sanders for President, the DNC went with the candidate of the affluent and powerful. Under this circumstance, progressives including Bernie Sanders need to recognize that the Democratic Party neither serves our interests nor shares our values. It is therefore long past time to create our own party or join an existing one which does.

There is an understandable resistance to this conclusion. With the assistance of a compliant media, Republicans and Democrats have constructed a truly daunting political Leviathan. Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000, which helped George W. Bush win the White House, remains fresh in the minds of many on the left. Some progressive leaders counsel unity with mainstream Democrats claiming it’s the only way to prevent Republicans from gaining control of two-thirds of state legislatures and thereby the ability to amend the Constitution unilaterally.

But the rapid rise of the then-progressive Republican Party 165 years ago, when it stood foursquare on the side of moral justice, should hearten intrepid progressives. Likewise, Nader’s bid should not scare progressives into remaining in a crumbling Democratic Party. At the turn of the last millenium, Al Gore appeared to the left of both most Americans and the President he had served for eight years.

Since 2000, however, the Democratic Party has become more overtly corporatist while Americans have become more populist. If, as argued here, today’s Republican ascendency results from the Democratic Party’s tilt in favor of corporate interests, the party’s steadfast refusal to reorient itself in a more populist direction will likely lead to more losses in the coming years regardless of whether progressives remain in the fold.

The unforeseen success of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders throughout the 2016 election season demonstrates the hunger for candidates who are not beholden to either of the major parties. Americans under 40, not just millennials, are increasingly bypassing corporate media for news and information. This provides an opportunity for political candidates who are new-media savvy even if they are relatively short on cash.

In light of the documented contempt Americans feel for both major parties, progressive populists led by Bernie Sanders have an opportunity to create a viable pro-people party or to join the Greens who share our values. The alternative is to remain a loud but ignored voice for justice in a shrinking Democratic Party that is largely irrelevant in large swaths of the country. The correct choice seems clear.

4 Responses to Same Old Democrats

You laid it out well, Hal. Be in favor of the pro-corporate Democratic Party or venture into the difficult world of alternate parties? Neither choice seems satisfactory. The ideal would be for the Democratic Party to wake up and see the downward trajectory there are on and fix it. But no signs of that yet. See Shaun King’s NY Daily News op-ed on how the Dems don’t seem aware of how unpopular they are. https://thebigpicturereport.com/2017/03/11/democrat-party-unpopular/

The ideal scenario would be two arrows moving towards one another—the Democratic party and true progressives of the electorate. Not enough Democratic politicians will have the courage to give corporate power the one-finger salute until they know the American are behind them. Remember 2010. I’m as ticked off with the American people as I am the politicians.

I do see, however, how a party with a new name could give people the illusion that something new is going onand attract voters. It might be an effective move. But I think it might be more feasible for progressives like us to take over the Democratic party by making sure our representatives do what we expect of them and, if not, get new candidates.

Am I being naive? Has the party become so calcified that it’s shell is impenetrable? Just asking.

Beginning ~10yrs ago, Moscow-based Kaspersky Labs tried2 damage rival competitor’s reputations by tricking their programs into classifying benign files as malicious. Per 2 former employees, some such attacks were ordered by

(Wednesday, Dec 13. 2017 12:50 AM)

KL’s co-founder Eugene Kaspersky, in part 2retaliate against rivals who he felt were aping his software rather than dev their own. KL’s engineers would take files like common critical drivers & inject bad code into them so they appeared infected. KL would then upload the doctored files anonymously2 VirusTotal flagging them as infected. Other AV engineers would then visit VT & create signatures that would flag all sim files. This often caused their AV programs 2quarantine perfectly good drivers from ppl’s computers causing system problems. http://goo.gl/fssZ1B

I guess it all boils down2 what 1 believes gives meaning to mankind’s life. To me, man will only have significance if he survives the Darwinian nature of the universe in the long term. In only a billion yrs, r sun will have brightened

(Tuesday, Dec 12. 2017 04:59 AM)

enough2 boil the oceans. If man is 2survive, it will only be cuz of his unique intelligence & ability2 fav reshape his enviro. There is nothing else particularly special about man, espec not his ability 2practice cut-throat Darwinistic behaviors. If the nat Darwinian path led2 immortal life, we would see evidence of an entire universe teaming w/life that has survived the ages. We don’t. So man must uniquely fight against the natural Darwinian order & instead build the strongest poss united society in which all individuals & earth’s life forms thrive.

4 Jeff – 1st of all u wrote that I think gov’t should buy everything 4 everybody. Obviously, that’s false. Now u write that I want gov’t 2 buy baseball tix 4 poor kids. I don’t oppose such legislation but my preference is that the City of Baltimore should condition use of its city by O’s upon an agreement by team 2 distribute free or low-cost tix to poor Baltimoreans.

For Hal – You do think the government should buy tickets to baseball games for the less fortunate. What’s the difference between that and a voucher to a restaurant? The point stands. You think the government has the authority to spend someone else’s money on whatever you deem appropriate.

For jeff linder – not everything. I don’t think the gov’t should provide people with yachts or vouchers to eat at restaurants & not at the expensive others since I would b subject 2 same taxes that I support. But it’s easier 2 attack arguments I don’t make.

The EIC has been much abused. Ppl that dont even work r propositioned by dishonest tax preparers who promise ppl they will get a tax refund if they just pay a fee. Self-Emp_Income is declared & the EIC is requested. By law, IRS pays

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 06:56 PM)

refunds quick, & only later it discovers the person never paid SEI taxes. The tax preparer & their fee r long gone; the person now owes IRS back the EIC. Woe 2the person that actually recvd need-based benefits (SSI or welfare) during the tax yr, as IRS records now show they had SEI they didnt declare. So welfare/SSI also want their money back, & usually such persons already at poverty level. This is the type of issue I tried 2expain2 Hal re accurate gas tax refunds. Although computerization slowly making this better, such programs rife w/fraud & bureaucratic messes.

Jeff isnt proposing a true GMI. The “earned income tax credit” he mentions already exists – IF u have low-pay job, then u may get a tax rebate. This also much like current Repub proposals 2req work 2get Medicaid. Prob socially

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 02:32 PM)

insulated ppl dont recog is there r many that have educational/mental/physical/economic-based issues such that they cant get/hold a job in today’s economy where workers compete w/3rd world. Sometimes ppl like Jeff will have eyes opened if something really bad happens in their lives. Gen working population is always so surprised how few services there really r when it is they that need help – but even then they often hang on2 dogma: Everybody but them (espec those dark “foreigners”) r cheaters/liars & that’s why there is nothing avail 4them when they need it.

Tweeden’s colleague John Phillips /groomed/ her 2release pic; Tweeden had no idea Phillips & Stone were hard right buddies. Arnold says Sean Hannity had wanted the photo since 2007 but she refused him & that Tweeden never wanted Franken fired. Arnold posted email purportedly showing Stone trying2 whip up story2 gossip columnists even b4 Tweeden story aired, though a pseudonym Russian nm was used & Tom has no proof email was Stone’s doing. DC & US will be vacant if we all r held 2such high stds over entire lifetime. We need Al in the Senate. http://goo.gl/oLWfA3

For halginsberg – The government spends about $1T in means tested programs. That’s about $3K per person. For illustration only:. GMI-Earned Income=Refund. That way there is no cost in benefits to working.

For halginsberg – That’s funny Hal. You think it’s someone else’s duty to spend money on things you think are important. I think you should spend your money on what you think is important. Re GMI it’s a workable solution as a replacement for all welfare programs.

For halginsberg – It’s not the federal government’s business to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads and a warm place to sleep Hal. If you know someone like in dire need why aren’t you helping them?
And yes, I support a guaranteed income.

For jeff linder – I asked u earlier how u propose to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads, and a warm place to sleep. I think u support a guaranteed minimum income. Is that correct?